Does Shooting in RAW Matter Given My Workflow?

[JoeU]

All true. Personally, I work from the Raw file 90% of the time, and I do my wb and color correction (and in fact, most of my pp in general) in the color mode that most people try to actively avoid: Lab color.

Why? Because I do my pp in Photoshop. When you tell PS to convert from one color profile to another, PS takes the working space, converts it to Lab color, then converts the Lab image to the destination spce. If your working space is Lab, you've already taken control of 50 % of that conversion. And if you tell PS to clip the results of your edits to the possible combinations of the destination space, then you see what the conversion results are going to be before you ever make the conversion. (with a bit of minor variance).

Told you I was a color snob.

 

[Ysarex]

All true. Personally, I work from the Raw file 90% of the time, and I do my wb and color correction (and in fact, most of my pp in general) in the color mode that most people try to actively avoid: Lab color.

White Balance is done during the raw conversion process -- a raw file can't be demosaiced without WB values supplied. Lab color as a working space is only available after the raw file has been converted to an RGB image.

I didn't know most people actively avoid Lab color. I've never actively avoided Lab color. I do try & avoid processing my photos using a workflow that isn't 100% non-destructive and non-linearly re-editable so I try and avoid pixel editors like Photoshop which I normally succeed in doing.

Joe

Why? Because I do my pp in Photoshop. When you tell PS to convert from one color profile to another, PS takes the working space, converts it to Lab color, then converts the Lab image to the destination spce. If your working space is Lab, you've already taken control of 50 % of that conversion. And if you tell PS to clip the results of your edits to the possible combinations of the destination space, then you see what the conversion results are going to be before you ever make the conversion. (with a bit of minor variance).

Told you I was a color snob.

 

[JoeU]

Well my apologies then. In my experience, when I tell people I do my color processing in Lab mode, they react as if I'd just told them I encourage my children to play on the freeway.

I think I'm going to like it here.

 

[BananaRepublic]

Let me explain: I'm not asking generally (or if for you) shooting in RAW is a good thing. I've always been an advocate of shooting in RAW (and I almost always do--except when I'm shooting stuff for my church and they don't want good photos, just snapshots they can use for sermons or church newsletters or the website--so how fast I can get them edits matters most).

Any rate, what I am asking is this: I shot an event for my church (in jpeg) then a day later went to shoot some stuff on my own. I stupidly forgot to switch back to RAW (because it's usually a default setting for me). I was initially disgusted with myself--now I've got an SD card full of jpeg files--bah! But then I got to thinking.

My usually workflow is: shoot in RAW, identify files I want to edit, import them to Affinity Photo, "Develop" the photo (which in AP means take the RAW file and make edits--which almost never involve any serious work on white balance--I try to get that right with the shot rather than post-production). I'm always doing some sharpening (b/c it's shot in a RAW format), some cropping to alter the composition a bit, some healing brush to eliminate a few distractions (damn power line and how the hell did that coke can get in the foreground), maybe some filter affects (adding grain or removing haze, etc.), usually a little with shadow or highlights, usually a little around color, occasionally playing with DoF settings, then exporting as a Jpeg.

But I got to thinking--what editing am I doing that needs to be done in RAW? If I shot in jpeg I'd lost a lot of more sophisticated editing options and white balance stuff but I'm rarely doing that. And if I shot in jpeg, it would save the time of "Developing" (ie: reading the RAW file) and also having to sharpen every RAW file.

Thoughts? I'd welcome advice. Because right now if because of my principles (RAW is best for everything I shoot) I'm significantly adding time to my workflow.

You may not need RAW in reality but to me its like cutting a piece of timber, better to cut long and then shave the excess rather then be caught short.

The thing with raw +jpeg I found is that Im left with a tonne more files which invariably I delete on mass rather then the tedium of going through.

 

[Rinderart]

Hmmmm. working Pro for Longer than I care to admit. actually 60 Years. and Been Teaching 12 years and sell In High end Galleries and doing Stock and very High end clients, Worldwide and museums for decades etc.... PS expert and original Tester of Photoshop in the beginning with Tommy Knoll.
I shoot Jpeg. I Know raw and Understand it as well as anyone. This is My Job. which means I learned How to shoot long before this debate. well.....useless debate., Understanding WB,Exposure,processing and so on and so on. Im not here to argue about this because Im sick of doing it and that was years ago.

You wanna twiddle your Profit away. go for it. I teach to get it right In Camera like we had to do since Day One.. seems Like a no Brainer to me. and this is not 2001 and we really don't need to argue about it. See it and shoot it right.Period. Learn that.
Look at My Site www.Rinderart.com
And learn to see before all the Nonsense. And you twiddle away your Life processing a Image for Gods sake. Theres enough Info in a Jpeg to do whatever, I shoot Jpeg, And transfer to Tiff as My master.. I'll put mine Up against anyone. Theres simply no need Guys.The Jpeg /Raw debate ended 10 years ago.
This is not being against god or something. My Jpegs do quite well. enough to have a nice House In Beverly Hills and a beautiful studio and sell In Galleries with Huge clients. what More do ya need??? Im Not Bragging Guys. It is what it is.I've done 3 Nat geographic covers and 100's of Other covers..The Real Truth About JPEG images

I go to Gallery shows a LOT. Never stood in front of a Piece and said...Nice Raw.And seen all The masters Old and new.
Doesn't matter. The Impact of the Image is what matters.That happens at time of exposure for most part.just a few Pics out of about 130,000 working.

 

[Dao]

Here is what I think. It all comes down to work flow.
1. Shoot raw
2. Import photos (I use LR)
3. POST process
4. Mass Export JPEG.

OP, If you shoot jpeg for the reason of save time on POST or all photos were great already with the POST done by the camera itself, then you can just skip step 3. Just do Import -> mass export JPEG. It should not take too much of your time. However, you still have the luxury of getting it right after the shoot. Especially for fast moving events in which the camera sometimes may not do a good job on some auto stuff (i.e. white balance, spot metering) and miss couple photos.

Again, it is just addressing OP's concern on shoot jpeg so that he can save time while prefer shooting RAW.

 

[Soocom1]

Hmmmm. working Pro for Longer than I care to admit. actually 60 Years. and Been Teaching 12 years and sell In High end Galleries and doing Stock and very High end clients, Worldwide and museums for decades etc.... PS expert and original Tester of Photoshop in the beginning with Tommy Knoll.
I shoot Jpeg. I Know raw and Understand it as well as anyone. This is My Job. which means I learned How to shoot long before this debate. well.....useless debate., Understanding WB,Exposure,processing and so on and so on. Im not here to argue about this because Im sick of doing it and that was years ago.

You wanna twiddle your Profit away. go for it. I teach to get it right In Camera like we had to do since Day One.. seems Like a no Brainer to me. and this is not 2001 and we really don't need to argue about it. See it and shoot it right.Period. Learn that.
Look at My Site www.Rinderart.com
And learn to see before all the Nonsense. And you twiddle away your Life processing a Image for Gods sake. Theres enough Info in a Jpeg to do whatever, I shoot Jpeg, And transfer to Tiff as My master.. I'll put mine Up against anyone. Theres simply no need Guys.The Jpeg /Raw debate ended 10 years ago.
This is not being against god or something. My Jpegs do quite well. enough to have a nice House In Beverly Hills and a beautiful studio and sell In Galleries with Huge clients. what More do ya need??? Im Not Bragging Guys. It is what it is.I've done 3 Nat geographic covers and 100's of Other covers..The Real Truth About JPEG images

I go to Gallery shows a LOT. Never stood in front of a Piece and said...Nice Raw.And seen all The masters Old and new.
Doesn't matter. The Impact of the Image is what matters.That happens at time of exposure for most part.just a few Pics out of about 130,000 working.

I agree with a fair amount of what your saying.
from the other end of the spectrum here (non pro and I don't sell anything), but I shot RAW when i first had my M 7D and and early on DID see a difference in actual quality.
But the MP count and the fact that newer types of hardware and software has taken into account what people do with photos these days means that its no longer a needs.

I do usually fire off in RAW and when necessary convert down to JPEG or TIFF as I desire. But because most of my work stys at home and only occasionally worms its way out, I will shoot jpeg for those reasons.

IMO if it gets the job done, do it.

Why worry about it?

 

[Rinderart]

Hmmmm. working Pro for Longer than I care to admit. actually 60 Years. and Been Teaching 12 years and sell In High end Galleries and doing Stock and very High end clients, Worldwide and museums for decades etc.... PS expert and original Tester of Photoshop in the beginning with Tommy Knoll.
I shoot Jpeg. I Know raw and Understand it as well as anyone. This is My Job. which means I learned How to shoot long before this debate. well.....useless debate., Understanding WB,Exposure,processing and so on and so on. Im not here to argue about this because Im sick of doing it and that was years ago.

You wanna twiddle your Profit away. go for it. I teach to get it right In Camera like we had to do since Day One.. seems Like a no Brainer to me. and this is not 2001 and we really don't need to argue about it. See it and shoot it right.Period. Learn that.
Look at My Site www.Rinderart.com
And learn to see before all the Nonsense. And you twiddle away your Life processing a Image for Gods sake. Theres enough Info in a Jpeg to do whatever, I shoot Jpeg, And transfer to Tiff as My master.. I'll put mine Up against anyone. Theres simply no need Guys.The Jpeg /Raw debate ended 10 years ago.
This is not being against god or something. My Jpegs do quite well. enough to have a nice House In Beverly Hills and a beautiful studio and sell In Galleries with Huge clients. what More do ya need??? Im Not Bragging Guys. It is what it is.I've done 3 Nat geographic covers and 100's of Other covers..The Real Truth About JPEG images

I go to Gallery shows a LOT. Never stood in front of a Piece and said...Nice Raw.And seen all The masters Old and new.
Doesn't matter. The Impact of the Image is what matters.That happens at time of exposure for most part.just a few Pics out of about 130,000 working.

I agree with a fair amount of what your saying.
from the other end of the spectrum here (non pro and I don't sell anything), but I shot RAW when i first had my M 7D and and early on DID see a difference in actual quality.
But the MP count and the fact that newer types of hardware and software has taken into account what people do with photos these days means that its no longer a needs.

I do usually fire off in RAW and when necessary convert down to JPEG or TIFF as I desire. But because most of my work stys at home and only occasionally worms its way out, I will shoot jpeg for those reasons.

IMO if it gets the job done, do it.

Why worry about it?

Well said. never met a client, Or site that wanted a raw files. and If they did. I wouldn't give it to them. Tiff is My master.I'll put my work up against anyones as per subject. Bottom Line...Do what ya want. I have to process and move on. Im simply not gonna twiddle with a Raw file. Never heard of or never said....."Nice raw"...LOL

 

[Ysarex]

Folks get the whole raw/JPEG difference and rationale confused all the time. There's nothing wrong with JPEGs. JPEG compression is great and my finished photos end up as JPEGs. I print JPEGs all the time and you can't tell the difference. So it's not about JPEG compression -- that's a valuable feature. "Raw processing gives me more flexibility in case I screw up." Don't screw up. I don't shoot raw because I need to cover my butt in case I screw up.

It's about extended capability. I shoot raw so I can take photos that JPEG only shooters just can't take at all. I do that regularly and I expect to be able to do that. The "get it right in camera" myth is a myth because unless you're setting up the lighting in a studio, you have to deal with the light as is out there in the world. Often it's a good match for the processing capabilities of the camera JPEG software but just as often it is not. As frequently noted the comparison between transparency and negative film is appropriate. Transparency film has to be right straight from camera so there's little room for error. When people make that comparison they always leave off what should be the next sentence: And so adverse lighting frequently shuts down the option to shoot transparency film entirely. Negative film however can be taken into the darkroom where the adverse lighting condition can be worked with and overcome. Negative film can be used successfully over a wider range of lighting conditions.

So going all the way back to the OP's original question and reapplying that question to myself the answer is absolutely yes. I'm not at all willing to limit what I shoot to only the photos JPEG shooters can take.

Joe

 

[Dave442]

I started shooting in Raw about three months after buying LR3. It just made sense to me that my workflow has an Archive file type and a Developed file type. In the end I found if I just stuck with Raw then it speed up my workflow.

 

[Derrel]

This post still has legs!

 

[Ysarex]

And the debate goes On....LOL thats cool. Love to see the finished work. thats where it is and it's gonna be JPG anyway..I have personally Found from 100's of students. They shoot raw Because someone told them to. "The Digital negative" "The store Salesman" and all that. Same Guy that said use a UV filter On your Lens....LOL Like said. I got No problem with it. And the students I've had That come here to learn studio work and Photoshop said They wanna shoot Raw. I always say Great. But do me a favor and shoot Both. They do and In 12 years and 592 People coming here from around the world Not one leaves here after learning Processing is still shooting Raw.

I'm not following -- they learn Processing and that experience convinces them to shoot JPEG? Why? They decide after learning Processing that they don't want to do Processing?

Joe

 

[Ysarex]

Folks get the whole raw/JPEG difference and rationale confused all the time. There's nothing wrong with JPEGs. JPEG compression is great and my finished photos end up as JPEGs. I print JPEGs all the time and you can't tell the difference. So it's not about JPEG compression -- that's a valuable feature. "Raw processing gives me more flexibility in case I screw up." Don't screw up. I don't shoot raw because I need to cover my butt in case I screw up.

It's about extended capability. I shoot raw so I can take photos that JPEG only shooters just can't take at all. I do that regularly and I expect to be able to do that. The "get it right in camera" myth is a myth because unless you're setting up the lighting in a studio, you have to deal with the light as is out there in the world. Often it's a good match for the processing capabilities of the camera JPEG software but just as often it is not. As frequently noted the comparison between transparency and negative film is appropriate. Transparency film has to be right straight from camera so there's little room for error. When people make that comparison they always leave off what should be the next sentence: And so adverse lighting frequently shuts down the option to shoot transparency film entirely. Negative film however can be taken into the darkroom where the adverse lighting condition can be worked with and overcome. Negative film can be used successfully over a wider range of lighting conditions.

So going all the way back to the OP's original question and reapplying that question to myself the answer is absolutely yes. I'm not at all willing to limit what I shoot to only the photos JPEG shooters can take.

Joe

I had to go out after the above post and didn't have more time. It would help of course to present an example of; "I shoot raw so I can take photos that JPEG only shooters just can't take at all." So a couple weeks ago I got out for a day trip with my camera. On that trip I took 1/2 a dozen photos that JPEG shooters just can't take at all. I'm not going to give up taking those photos so I can shoot JPEG -- why should I? I took this photo of the old Winfield ferry:

Here's the JPEG the camera created for that exposure:

The JPEG is of course a crash and burn with the diffuse highlights nuked to oblivion. That's understandable since I took the photo with the EC set to +1.3. I expose for the sensor in my camera and I knew I'd want as much tonal info as possible in the above photo. From the shadow detail under the front of the boat to the highlights in the clouds there's 9.5 stops of tonal data. I used all of it in my version of the photo. A JPEG shooter simply can't have that much data.

So if the JPEG shooter wanted to take this photo they'd have to reduce exposure. In fact they'd have to use less than half as much of the sensor as I did. I put the raw file back in the camera and re-processed it with the exposure pulled. The JPEG shooter would have to expose and get something like this:

And then of course the real thigh-slapping hilarity of all of this is they're going to have to take that to the computer anyway and try and salvage a usable photo from it -- a task more difficult and time consuming and requiring more skill than just processing the raw file. In fact I imagine I'd process dozens of raw files while a JPEG shooter tried to get anything remotely looking like my first image above from the basket case JPEG they'd bring home.

One it's about exposure: If you shoot JPEG you can't expose and clip the diffuse highlights. That means you're always going to expose less than I do. JPEG shooters typically only use about 1/2 the recording potential in their camera's sensors -- I use it all. The photo presented here is backlit and the lighting contrast is very high. Shooting JPEGs you're forced to walk away with less of the scene's tonal data.

Two it's about processing: The camera JPEG software has limited flexibility and can't do anything local with an image. I dragged a gradient over the sky in processing to allow local control and then I erased the gradient from the boat. When the JPEG software encounters a scene like the one above it doesn't have the ability to accommodate the high lighting contrast (& yes I'm well versed with Active D lighting, Canon HTP, Fuji DR modes etc. which are good for even more thigh slapping hilarity). As a result the JPEG shooter tries to take a photo like the one above and heads for the computer anyway to try and effect a repair which is more difficult, takes more time and then fails -- thigh slapping LOL.

Of course smart JPEG shooters can just walk away from a scene like the one above and leave it to me.

NOTE: The slide film/negative film comparison: The above scene with the main subject of the photo backlit is a classic case of the transparency film photographer also getting shut down. Try that with any transparency film and if you get a decent exposure for the boat you're going to have clear film base holes in your transparency where the clouds should be. Expose to keep the clouds and you get a basket case exposure of the boat. It's a lose/lose situation. It's always been that way and slide film shooters learned when to walk away. JPEG shooters learn when to walk away too. I take the photo.

Joe

 

[Ysarex]

Nice...OK. heres a few straight Jpegs out of camera.

That's not what you posted. The photos that follow this post are certainly not SOOC JPEGs. Most if not all are post processed. They may have originated as camera JPEGs versus output from a computer based raw processor but they've been through the computer and received some heavy software manipulation.

I do this to sell.

Duh... So does McDonalds. They sell more hamburgers than anybody. Guess that means you could never make a hamburger as good as a McDonalds burger.

Joe

 

[Ysarex]

Just a reminder. I do levels adjustments, sometimes composites. Dodging and Burning Like we did Long Before digital.

That's obvious, you're heavily post processing camera JPEGs. As you previously note; "you twiddle away your Life processing a Image for Gods sake." So what happened to; "I teach to get it right In Camera like we had to do since Day One.." You don't actually think it takes less work and time to post process a camera JPEG than it does a raw file? LOL

You also noted that you save TIF files as a Master. So your disk storage requirement is much higher than mine saving raw files -- 50% or more higher. That's an advantage too? You're spending more to manage larger files and that's good?

Your preaching to the choir Brother. I'll do whatever it takes. My stuff goes to a gazillion Places my friend. and this is My fun Recreation stuff. my serious stuff is shooting In a clean Room 11 Miles Down Under the Mountains in france and Switzerland shooting The parts for the Hadron Collider with 150 MP cameras....And JPEG BTW....LOL.Talk soon.

So nice photos but pretty heavily cooked with clipped highlights and blown color channels. Is the highlight clipping because you're shooting JPEGs to start with or is that a result of your post processing? If it was me I'd avoid doing that but hey, you do it to sell.

Joe